Yes, folks, this is one of the most active WP admins out there. When he's not running away from his Wikihome in a snit, until called back by Daddy Jimbo for super sekret missions. Plus WP has really good articles on titties.

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writs this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 7th December 2007, 5:20am

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 7th December 2007, 5:40am

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey

Gangs, though, are actually willing to admit that there is a power structure that gives people at the top power to ignore norms. Wikipedia doesn't do that, so nobody is allowed to communicate that idea. Unless, of course, the Wikisheviks have been particulary divided and some Wikitrotskies need to be removed.

Gangs, though, are actually willing to admit that there is a power structure that gives people at the top power to ignore norms. Wikipedia doesn't do that, so nobody is allowed to communicate that idea. Unless, of course, the Wikisheviks have been particulary divided and some Wikitrotskies need to be removed.

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey

A look inside Wikipedia, I bet you can pick out Goethean..(Bowser and the rats).... As well asJimbo (bill)... and the rest of the notable wikigang members...

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Mon 15th August 2011, 4:12pm

I don't particularly understand the mindset of "flaming out" of a site and scrambling your password; my style is more to gradually have my interests shift elsewhere until I hardly ever participate any more (my activity on both WP and WR has been rather minimal for ages now), but not actually delete, block, or deactivate my account; I might happen to feel like popping back in at some point, and have no wish to burn my bridges. But to each his/her/its own.

Shit, he would've made a great interview subject. How to contact him......?

alecmconroy at gmail.com

I tried that, and variations of it. All my messages were returned. Yes, it appears that he has killed his email.

If I remember right, this Wikipedia participant was active in helping kill the BADSITES policy proposal. I don't see any comments from him on the BADSITES' talk page, however, so I don't remember in which discussion forums he was active.

I don't particularly understand the mindset of "flaming out" of a site and scrambling your password; my style is more to gradually have my interests shift elsewhere until I hardly ever participate any more (my activity on both WP and WR has been rather minimal for ages now), but not actually delete, block, or deactivate my account; I might happen to feel like popping back in at some point, and have no wish to burn my bridges. But to each his/her/its own.

Dan, you must not have become addicted to either WP or WR. Conroy was likely addicted. Cold turkey denial of access is sometimes the best way to stop for such a victim.